4.6 Article

Differences between carcinoma of the cecum and ascending colon: Evidence based on clinical and embryological data

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 53, Issue 1, Pages 87-98

Publisher

SPANDIDOS PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.3892/ijo.2018.4366

Keywords

cecum; ascending colon; adenocarcinoma; SLCO1B3; lymph node

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Scientific Foundation of China [81502442]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Developing rapidly from the cecal diverticulum in a 5-week-old embryo, the cecum, which is developed from the caudal limb of the midgut loop, is different from the ascending colon. The aim of this study was to analyze the different clinicopathological and biological characteristics of patients with carcinoma of the cecum and ascending colon. We accessed data for 59,035 patients with adenocarcinomas of the cecum and ascending colon from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database to explore the potential associations between the clinicopathological characteristics and overall survival. Furthermore, we analyzed the differences in gene expression between the two segments in the Gene Expression Omnibus database. The results were validated in The Cancer Genome Atlas database, as well as with another independent dataset from the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University. The results of this study revealed the potential prognostic differences between adenocarcinoma of the cecum and ascending colon, which may be caused by the differential expression levels of the SLCO1B3 gene. When including the expression levels of SLCO1B3 in intraoperatively examined lymph nodes, 8 factors were found able to predict the prognosis of patients with carcinomas of the cecum and ascending colon. As regards the surgical therapeutic strategies, the resection of >15 local lymph nodes is appropriate for improving the prognosis of patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available